Note that my reason (1) is not a strategy. Also, taking reasonable steps to prevent self-deception is a moral imperative, not (in this case) a strategy for accomplishing a goal. To not take such steps is to be complicit with the self-deception, which is wrong.

> If Snowden can maximize publicity by playing cat-and-mouse with the U.S. government for weeks

That's a completely different claim than the one being discussed (that Snowden is justified to avoid punishment per se), and hinges on a question about Snowden's motivations which for which there's no evidence.

Your points about MLK and Gandhi possibly being wrong are fine. Arguing about that is way beyond the scope of this thread.

EDIT (resonse to kijin): Snowden's motivations are obviously relevant if you're justifying his avoiding of punishment because of the publicity issue. If Snowden think going to trial would maximize publicity but is still avoiding punishment because he's a wimp, and it just so happens that avoiding punishment ends up giving him more publicity, the latter fact does not justify his actions.

It's not a requirement for promoting justice that you are sinless. But I would claim it is a requirement that take reasonable steps to prevent self-deception during the particular justice-promoting act. If someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their family, and also takes a nice watch for themselves along the way, I am prepared to say that that theft was not justified. I don't need to look into the family situation.

Also, most people doesn't dispute that the espionage law is just, they dispute whether PRISM is just and whether Snowden was justified in violating the (just) espionage law to expose PRISM.